CDF Issues Guidance on use of Hysterectomy in Some Situations

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pug
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pug said:
It seems like it is allowing one to remove a uterus because it is believed that the uterus will spontaneously abort before any child is deemed viable.
Click to expand...
Really? And how did you come to that determination?

It doesn’t sound like anything new here, just a restatement of a previous teaching.

Having a hysterectomy for a medical issue is not sterilization by choice.
 
I am responding to the CDF, aka Card. Ladaria. I said he seems to be saying something. I did not make a determination about hysterectomies. I am trying to get feedback on what he said. I will quote from Ladaria, who seems to say there is something new/different here (I bolded):
The element that renders the present question essentially different is the certainty reached by medical experts that in the case of a pregnancy, it would be spontaneously interrupted before the fetus arrives at a state of viability. Here it is not a question of difficulty, or of risks of greater or lesser importance, but of a couple for which it is not possible to procreate.
Click to expand...
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, December 10, 2018.

Luis F. Card. Ladaria, S.I.
Prefect
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Can someone explain to me the nature of this dubia? I thought moral law was pretty clear on this and the answer seems to say what the Church has always said. So my question is, What am I missing here? Why was this question answered now when it seems to have been answered so many times before?
 
This seems odd to me, from what I read in the article. Kinda pushing the boundaries, iyswim.

But I see the reasoning, so it may be ok. The uterus is incapable of doing what it is supposed to do, so it would not be an attempt to avoid bringing a new life in to the world to remove the uterus. And removing an organ that does not work at all is not in and of itself immoral, I assume.

Could this end up being a slippery slope, ie, in the case of someone taking an abortive drug for life for a purpose other than contraception?
 
Last edited:
Annie said:
The uterus is incapable of doing what it is supposed to do
Click to expand...
The hypothetical seems to imagine an imperfect womb that can only get the job done part-way. I’d always considered such people to be parents if they got pregnant (ie they have a child, but it dies before birth). It would help to know what situation the article has in mind.
 
This seems like a really bad decision to me. Here’s the whole thing in English:
http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2019/01/03/0005/00014.html#en

I don’t really understand how this is not direct sterilization, unless they are claiming life does not being at conception–which it looks like they are. The CDF seems to be saying the good of procreation has not been achieved merely by conception–the creation of a new life–but only when a baby is brought to viability. Therefore, if conception is possible, but bringing the baby to viability is not, there is no sterlization since no good is being prevented.

That seems very dehumanizing to persons who have not reached viability! A person has worth and is a good from the moment of conception!

In the cases at hand the utuerus poses no threat to the mother, but rather it is being removed to prevent the premature deaths of children that may be concieved–by preventing their conception in the first place! The very intended effect is to prevent conception! This is the definition of contraception and the Church has said over and over (including in the CDF document cited by this one, which dealt with the same issue, except the potential harm addressed was to the mother, not the child) that we can’t directly intend sterilization or contraception even for a good end.

And by what logic is this limited to a hysterectomy to prevent conception? Using the logic of this response, using other forms of contraception (condoms, spermicide, etc.) would also be acceptable since they are not really preventing the good of procreation but only conception, since development to viability is not possible in this case.

Humanae Vitae specifically says the Church considers “always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the latter practice may appear to be upright and serious.”

The CDF specifically is saying it is ok to directly impede conception when the pregnancy will certainly result in a spontaneous abortion. That is doing evil for good.
 
Last edited:
Conception happens in the Fallopian tubes, not the uterus.

There are simpler sterilization procedures than hysterectomy.
 
I bet it’s a clarification regarding differences in medical procedures.

Is there a copy of the dubia with the answer available?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top